TIME Ideas technology Can We Build an Internet That Includes the Hearing Impaired?

Steve Friess is a freelance writer.

Like any good Apple fanboy, I stopped everything last Monday to see what new goodies CEO Tim Cook had up his sleeve or, in this case, on his wrist. I came away uncertain if I need an Apple Watchand wondering why a company as admired for devices that break down barriers for people with disabilities had chosen to make this event inaccessible for millions of people like me. My frustration: The presentations live stream didnt have real-time closed captioning.

This is a common problem for people with hearing loss in the digital age, and the next day I found myself equally aggravated to see that just one major news websiteCNNprovided live subtitles for Hillary Clintons email press conference. MSNBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, Bloomberg, and CSPAN all lacked live captioning on their streams, especially baffling since they all included them in the live TV presentations of the same event.

Such is, but should not be, life in the Digital Age as one of the 36 million Americans who have hearing loss or are deaf. Those of us who rely on captionsI have worn bilateral hearing aids since I was in the second gradeare being left behind, stuck reading recaps, tweets, and live-blogs instead of experiencing key cultural and news events firsthand like everyone else.

The irony of the problem is that Deaf advocates had enjoyed a near-complete triumph in getting the FCC and Congress to force broadcast and cable TV outlets to provide live captioning in the late 1990s. Then, the party moved online and those gains became increasingly worthless in the Internet age.

As streaming video improvedand became more critical to basic cultural literacyaccess has gotten worse. In 2012, the FCC finally set up some rules that are only now kicking in for broadcasters regarding what they post online, but theyre very weak. By next month, programs shown on TV and posted in full must have closed-captioning within 45 days of airing. By April 2016, that window drops to 15 days. But video clips are exempt, as is live programming and, of course, all made-for-Web content.

There are legal challenges in the works regarding some situations, such as the federal lawsuit filed against Harvard and MIT last month to force them to caption online lectures and other educational materials. It boggles the mind that nobody at either of those liberal bastionslocated in the same region that boasts WGBH, the Boston PBS station that essentially invented closed captioningsaid, Oh. Right. Duh. There. Fixed. But neither the law, the courts, nor anyones conscience has yet to touch news or entertainment content providers in any important way.

Whats more, its stunning how little they seem to care, given that its not just a terrible moral decision but an awful commercial one as well. The number of Americans with hearing lossalready about 17% of the adult populationwill skyrocket as Baby Boomers age and as Millennials and Gen Xers start to pay in decibels for their lifelong addictions to earbuds. An awful lot of people are going to start missing out on an awful lot of stuff. Youd think that advertisers would at least want their commercials captioned, given the millions they spend trying to get their messages out. But almost no ads onlineand very few on TV, actuallyare subtitled.

Every person with hearing loss has a list of personal grievances. I pay as much as you for HBO Go, so why dont the extras and featurettes for Game of Thrones have subtitles just like the show itself? Ive waited seven years and counting to watch Neil Patrick Harris pioneering Web series Dr. Horribles Sing-Along Blog, but there were no captions when it first appeared for freeand still arent even now when they get $3 an episode on iTunes. And Id love to know what the big deal is with that lady who bathes in milk and Froot Loops while interviewing the presidentor somethingbut, again, no captions.

Go here to read the rest:

Can We Build an Internet That Includes the Hearing Impaired?